PDA

View Full Version : What Global Warming Boils Down To -



The Left Sock
01-06-2014, 12:36 PM
Two things: Greed, and God.

Greed - those with large influence, big pockets, and a vested interest in making sure that policy doesn't swing towards protecting the environment, are the major reason so much confusion and disconnect is happening on the global warming issue. Oil companies, gas companies, and major world powers, they don't want to be handcuffed from making more profit, or gaining more power, by adjusting their approach to the environment. They want to frack, drill, and fight, they want supercarriers, offshore rigs, and the opportunity to exploit profit, wherever it can be found. They want you to want that Hummer. They want to sell you SUV's, and the gas that goes in them.

God - a strange alliance exists between those who want to disregard the environment in order to gain more power and profit. Those from the religious right of the conservative spectrum have joined ranks with the oil companies and world powers, in order to discredit the possibility of global warming as either a man-made issue, or even a real issue at all. How did this strange alliance come into being?

Christians believe the world was created by God, and will be destroyed by God. They believe that God is omnipotent, and that all past, present, and future events are simultaneously known, ordained, and controlled by God. As such, it is inconceivable to the Christian mind that global warming can be a real threat to humanity, or that it can be man-made. God wouldn't allow Man to disrupt His plan, so there is no way that mankind can destroy the earth through global warming. And if global warming does destroy the earth, that would mean it was part of God's plan all along, so there is nothing to be done about it. Through their beliefs, and their interpretation of their God, Christians have handcuffed themselves from having any real say in the global warming debate, except to deny it. And strangely enough, they have handcuffed themselves as willing accomplices to big oil and world powers who seek to avoid being environmentally prudent.

So, it is left to those of us who are not shackled by oil profits, or world domination, or an omnipotent deity, to take up the cause of doing what is possible to counter the effects of global warming. Further, we must continue to rely upon science, truth, and reason to make the case for why we are collectively responsible for doing what we can, to preserve the world we all must share.

It is a big task, and time is of the essence. Will reason and prudence prevail, or will God and Greed render us impotent, until irreversible damage is done? And if we fail, but the world somehow survives, what will a world like that look like? What place will God and Greed have in a world decimated by our own ignorance? Very little, I should think.

So, we can make a declarative statement of victory, whatever the outcome. If reason prevails, and the world is spared the effects of global warming, catastrophe will have been averted. If God and Greed prevail, we might get the chance to start over, and learn the lesson of why humanity should avoid blind lust for wealth and power, and avoid religious paradoxes that render us helpless to steer our own destiny.

They call us the 'left'. That's a good thing. Because if ignorance and dogma decimate the world, the 'left' is all you're going to be 'left' with.

Enjoy.

Aristotle
01-06-2014, 12:49 PM
Very, VERY enjoyable :)

Aristotle
01-06-2014, 12:57 PM
Christians believe the world was created by God, and will be destroyed by God.

I was unaware of this. I did not know Christians believe God will destroy the world.

Can you expound?

The Left Sock
01-06-2014, 01:12 PM
See 'Revelations'. You can pick your own version of the Bible, but the whole 'judgment' thing is pretty much the same in every version.

Spoiler alert- fire, plague, four dudes on horses, some dudes vanishing out of their clothes, some bursting into flames, with their clothes still on. You get the idea!

Aristotle
01-06-2014, 01:27 PM
See 'Revelations'. You can pick your own version of the Bible, but the whole 'judgment' thing is pretty much the same in every version.

Spoiler alert- fire, plague, four dudes on horses, some dudes vanishing out of their clothes, some bursting into flames, with their clothes still on. You get the idea!

Oh, so you are taking the beliefs of one part of Christianity and painting all of Christianity with those beliefs.

Well, sorry to say, but your entire premise fails, because your basic presupposition is inaccurate: all Christians believe the world will be destroyed.

Sad, really. It is obvious you put a lot of work into your post. Too bad it all comes crumbling down because you didn't do basic homework.

The Left Sock
01-06-2014, 01:31 PM
So, now you're going to try and break Christianity down into component parts, to try to deny that God intends to destroy the world?

Very interesting. Please proceed.

I'm fascinated to find out how humans will survive this:

2 Peter 3:10: “The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.”

So, you're saying not all Christians need believe this, in order to consider themselves Christians? Do tell!

Aristotle
01-06-2014, 01:36 PM
So, now you're going to try and break Christianity down into component parts, to try to deny that God intends to destroy the world?

So, now you are trying to paint all of Christianity with one brush, to try and infer God intends to destroy the world?


I'm fascinated to find out how humans will survive this:

2 Peter 3:10: “The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.”

It's Apocalyptic writing, used commonly at that time to convey meaning through visuals. It was not to be taken literally.


So, you're saying not all Christians need believe this, in order to consider themselves Christians? Do tell!

I'm saying some Christians believe it literally, some do not. As such, your entire premise fails under its own shoddy research

dancingqueen
01-06-2014, 01:38 PM
So I'm not religious, nor do I have any profit to gain from ignoring global climate change... I just see climate changing as natural progression. Obviously one cannot conclusively draw this conclusion due to lack of evidence, though I am interested in the evidence that supports humans caused the world to warm up. I would be particularly interested in how the Ice Age started declining without the help of SUV's and non CFL light bulbs.

Aristotle
01-06-2014, 01:39 PM
VERY good question, DQ

The Left Sock
01-06-2014, 01:41 PM
"So, now you are trying to paint all of Christianity with one brush, to try and infer God intends to destroy the world?"

Er, it's only the biggest selling point in Christianity - you don't want to fry with the heathens do you? Of course not, so you better become a Christian so that when God destroys the world, you get to go the good place!

Come on, really? If there is no Apocalypse, there is no Christianity. Get serious, would you?

Aristotle
01-06-2014, 01:45 PM
Er, it's only the biggest selling point in Christianity

Link? Source?

- you don't want to fry with the heathens do you? Of course not, so you better become a Christian so that when God destroys the world, you get to go the good place!

Now you are resorting to your own take on it all. This has degenerated much faster than usual, no doubt due to your very shoddy research

Come on, really? If there is no Apocalypse, there is no Christianity. Get serious, would you?

If there is no Jesus, resurrected, there is no Christianity. Whatever your ill-informed views are on the rest of it matters little.

I'm sorry to have had to point out your well-crafted (but very poorly researched) OP dropped dead before it even got out of the gate, but someone had to.

The Left Sock
01-06-2014, 01:53 PM
You see, you got your two variables in global warming; man-made effects, and natural effects.

Those who wish to deny global warming is man-made, use events that were not man-made, which did cause climate change, as a means to muddy the waters, and get people confused about what is actually going on.

If an asteroid hits the earth, big clouds of dust fill the atmosphere, and things get really cold, for a really long time. Just ask the dinosaurs (not the ones that humans rode on 5,000 years ago, according to some conservatives, the actual ones from 65 million years ago).

If a big enough volcano erupts, it can cause a cooling trend across the planet, for a number of years.

Solar activity can also cause variations in global climate.

So, you have lots of things going on throughout history, that make it downright confusing to get a strong handle on what has happened to our climate. Luckily, we have scientists, and the technology now, to start piecing the whole thing together.

We have the capability now to monitor all of these things, and also monitor global temperature conditions, and now we can finally understand the difference between natural events, and man-made impact.

And, the best scientists in the world have collectively concluded that mankind is indeed having an impact on global temperature, that cannot be explained by any understood natural events.

Thus, you have 'global warming'.

The only question you have to ask yourself, is whether or not you want to believe those who dismiss it out of hand as some 'fear-mongering communist' conspiracy to control you, or believe those who make their life work out of trying to understand what is going on, with no vested interest in the outcome, one way or the other.

You really have to ask yourself a simple question: why would so many scientists around the world perpetuate a myth, knowing it will eventually be exposed, when their whole life work is dedicated to finding the facts?

Seems kind of silly, doesn't it?

Now, ask the question of those from the religious right: why would you deny that man is impacting his environment, and causing global warming?

Because it puts their belief in God in jeopardy.

Now ask yourself one final question: who you gonna believe?

The Left Sock
01-06-2014, 01:55 PM
"If there is no Jesus, resurrected, there is no Christianity. Whatever your ill-informed views are on the rest of it matters little."

Classic move of the goalposts.

If there is no Final Judgment, there is no Christianity, either. Both are required, or you are not a Christian. It's not an either-or proposition.

Nice try.

Aristotle
01-06-2014, 01:58 PM
You really have to ask yourself a simple question: why would so many scientists around the world perpetuate a myth, knowing it will eventually be exposed, when their whole life work is dedicated to finding the facts?

Seems kind of silly, doesn't it?


More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html

The Left Sock
01-06-2014, 02:00 PM
And how many scientists are there in the world?

How many scientists study global warming?

How many scientists, who don't study global warming, signed the petition?

It means nothing.

Aristotle
01-06-2014, 02:01 PM
"If there is no Jesus, resurrected, there is no Christianity. Whatever your ill-informed views are on the rest of it matters little."

Classic move of the goalposts.

If there is no Final Judgment, there is no Christianity, either. Both are required, or you are not a Christian. It's not an either-or proposition.

Nice try.

No one said there is no final judgment. Again, you do not address what people say, only what toy want them to say.

All Christians believe in a final judgment. Some Christians believe it will involve destruction of the earth, many do not. Some believe it is the final judgment of the soul, just you and God, face-to-face: no destruction of the earth required. As such, your premise is totally inaccurate, thus making your OP irrelevant and terribly uninformed.

The Left Sock
01-06-2014, 02:04 PM
More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html

From the article:

"One of the signatories, Frank Nuttall, a professor of medicine, said he believed the Earth was becoming warmer, despite his signature.
"This issue is whether the major reason for this is from human activities. I consider that inconclusive at the present time," he said."

There you have it. A guy who studies medicine, who has no idea about global warming, signed the petition, and then admitted that he thinks the world is warming, only the cause of it is inconclusive.

Why waste our time posting such drivel?

dancingqueen
01-06-2014, 02:06 PM
Soooo, that Ice age.....

The Left Sock
01-06-2014, 02:06 PM
"All Christians believe in a final judgment. "

Thank you. Conceded point accepted.

The Left Sock
01-06-2014, 02:11 PM
Soooo, that Ice age.....

Here you go, knock yourself out!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html

Aristotle
01-06-2014, 02:14 PM
"All Christians believe in a final judgment. "

Thank you. Conceded point accepted.

Alas, not the final judgment as you tried to portray it, with fire, brimstone, and great destruction.

As such, your premise fails

Aristotle
01-06-2014, 02:15 PM
Here you go, knock yourself out!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html

Yes, climate is cyclical. Thank you.

Wait...you had to google that??

The Left Sock
01-06-2014, 02:15 PM
So, the Bible is just a collection of fairy tales?

That's the only conclusion that can be drawn from your line of reasoning.

Aristotle
01-06-2014, 02:16 PM
So, the Bible is just a collection of fairy tales?

That's the only conclusion that can be drawn from your line of reasoning.

That's what YOU take from it, because you're now getting overtly emotional because your OP failed.

The Left Sock
01-06-2014, 02:16 PM
Yes, climate is cyclical. Thank you.

Wait...you had to google that??

Correction - natural climate is cyclical. Man-made impacts are not.

Happy to be of help!

Aristotle
01-06-2014, 02:17 PM
Correction - natural climate is cyclical. Man-made impacts are not.

Happy to be of help!

But there is little evidence man has had much effect

The Left Sock
01-06-2014, 02:18 PM
That's what YOU take from it, because you're now getting overtly emotional because your OP failed.

Either the Bible is the true word of God, or it is a collection of fairy tales, meant for individual interpretation.

Most Christians I encounter, would flip a wig at the second suggestion.

Aristotle
01-06-2014, 02:19 PM
Either the Bible is the true word of God, or it is a collection of fairy tales, meant for individual interpretation.

Most Christians I encounter, would flip a wig at the second suggestion.

It is the true word of God. But that doesn't mean mankind cannot twist God's word from time to time. After all, Man is a fallen creature.

Apocalyptic writing is not to be taken literally. The writing of Revelation is in apocalyptic mode.

The Left Sock
01-06-2014, 02:20 PM
But there is little evidence man has had much effect

None at all, according to those who chose blinders, instead of reality.

Aristotle
01-06-2014, 02:21 PM
None at all, according to those who chose blinders, instead of reality.

I will take this to mean you have come to an end with this issue.

Good enough.

The Left Sock
01-06-2014, 02:21 PM
It is the true word of God. But that doesn't mean mankind cannot twist God's word from time to time. After all, Man is a fallen creature.

Apocalyptic writing is not to be taken literally. The writing of Revelation is in apocalyptic mode.

So, where in the Bible do you find the guide on which books are to be taken literally?

In Christian-speak, you would be guilty of cherry-picking your truth.

It's a good thing you are a Catholic, because the Baptists would toss you out on your ear!

Aristotle
01-06-2014, 02:23 PM
So, where in the Bible do you find the guide on which books are to be taken literally?

The Holy Spirit guides people. As do educated people. No one believed, collectively, Revelation was literal until the Protestant Reformation, and lay people began giving their own interpretations of what it meant. The results speak for themselves.

In Christian-speak, you would be guilty of cherry-picking your truth

I believe what The Church has believed since day one. As for others, well ...

The Left Sock
01-06-2014, 02:25 PM
"The Holy Spirit guides people..."

So God has to guide you on how to read His book?

Why not just cut out the middle-man? What's the purpose in the book? Doesn't make any sense. Just another religious paradox, painting you into a theological corner.

Aristotle
01-06-2014, 02:28 PM
So God has to guide you on how to read His book?

Absolutely. Fallen Man would have a million different interpretations if not.

Why not just cut out the middle-man? What's the purpose in the book?

There is a history book on the desk over there. There is a student in the room, as there is a teacher. Do we cut out the history book, because there is a teacher? Or, do we use both, because both are beneficial in getting the truth across?

Doesn't make any sense. Just another religious paradox, painting you into a theological corner

See above.

Oh, and nice post-moving, too :)

The Left Sock
01-06-2014, 02:30 PM
I got news for you. The teacher in the room, is real.

I'll let you figure out the other part.

Aristotle
01-06-2014, 02:31 PM
I got news for you. The teacher in the room, is real.

I'll let you figure out the other part.

So because you believe the Holy Spirit is not real, it's not real?

Sorry, your OP still fails under its own weight.

dancingqueen
01-06-2014, 02:43 PM
Correction - natural climate is cyclical. Man-made impacts are not.

Happy to be of help!

So how does one tell the difference between natural climate change and man-made climate changing effects?

The Left Sock
01-06-2014, 04:46 PM
Well, you need a beaker, and a thermometer, and then you need to get out there, and start investigating!

Nihilistic Heathen
01-06-2014, 04:55 PM
More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html

Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm

Aristotle
01-06-2014, 05:06 PM
Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm

Exactly.

So when you see Lefties running around telling people "all scientists agree..." you know they are full of hot air (pun kinda' intended)

Thanks, NH!

Barry Morris
01-06-2014, 05:19 PM
Exactly.

So when you see Lefties running around telling people "all scientists agree..." you know they are full of hot air (pun kinda' intended)

Thanks, NH!

So that figure of 31,000 scientists means nothing?? Thought so. Especially noting that at least one (more??) was a medical professor!!! Highly qualified in environmental issues, no doubt!!! :) :) :)

Aristotle
01-06-2014, 05:20 PM
So that figure of 31,000 scientists means nothing?? Thought so. Especially noting that at least one (more??) was a medical professor!!! Highly qualified in environmental issues, no doubt!!! :) :) :)

Says the guy who found the info provided by skepticalscience quite good :)

dancingqueen
01-06-2014, 05:44 PM
Well, you need a beaker, and a thermometer, and then you need to get out there, and start investigating!

Okay, so you don't really have an answer.

Barry Morris
01-06-2014, 05:50 PM
Says the guy who found the info provided by skepticalscience quite good :)

Excuse me, but if all you can do is shoot the messenger, then your replies are garbage.

The Left Sock
01-06-2014, 07:23 PM
Okay, so you don't really have an answer.

Well, since I am not an environmental scientist, that would be the correct answer.

I do, however, have the capability to find the information I am looking for, from those scientists who dedicate their life to finding those answers, so I don't have to head out into the wilderness with my beaker and thermometer.

I am fully confident that scientists have done due diligence, and to the best of their abilities, have concluded that mankind is having an impact on his environment, causing climate change. You can draw the same conclusion, or you are free to listen to the oil company shills who bankroll people that spread disinformation, or listen to politicians with their pockets lined from special interests, or listen to those who ideologically oppose the idea of man-made global warming, based on some theological belief that the world is under omnipotent stewardship, so there is nothing to fear.

The choice is yours.

Aristotle
01-06-2014, 08:37 PM
Excuse me, but if all you can do is shoot the messenger, then your replies are garbage.

Quit providing so many messengers worth shooting then!! :)

Barry Morris
01-06-2014, 09:51 PM
Quit providing so many messengers worth shooting then!! :)

And again!!